About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 14
CNNW 4
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the
, that is .5 percent of the deficit. we cannot get there, get the deficit down without significant cuts in spending. >>neil: the election has consequences and you could argue that a key premise of the president's re-election was i will raise taxes on the rich and he is likely entitled to that, he will likely see that but it is all the other things they are leveraging with democrats do not touch entitlements and putting everything on table it remind me of george bush sr. he agreed to reverse the pledge oh ride -- "read my lips, no new taxes." but the democrats never offered correspondenting spend cuts. we know what happened to him. what happens to those who agree do in the republican party? >>guest: the republican party has to stand for economic growth and it has to stand for the principle that keeping tax rates low and reforming the tax system is the way to grow the economy. i disagree slightly with rand paul. i am in favor of closing loopholes. i hate them. i call them termites in the tax system but we should use that money to credit a first-class world class tax system that stops expo
the deadlines we're facing on taxes and deficits. these deadlines are going to be coming up very soon in the coming weeks. but today's important because i want to make sure everybody understands this debate is not just about numbers. it's a set of major decisions that are going to affect millions of families all across this country in very significant ways. and their voices, the voices of the american people, have to be part of this debate. and so i asked some friends of mine here to join me, some folks from here in the area. our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it would be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future. and i believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. but -- the place where we already have in theory at least complete agreement, right now, is on middle-class taxes. and as i've said before, we have two choices. if congre
that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion. that is substance. so he has not waited for people to start smelling the jet fumes at national airport. he has actively put forward a plan. >> the white house and republicans are ramping up their pr, something significant is happening behind the scenes. both sides appear to be preparing their own basis to eat their vegetables, if you will. in other words, get ready to make some sacrifices on sacred cows that are required for a grand bargain. for republicans that means swallowing changes to the bush-era tax rates and yesterday the first major house republican broke with the party line in a private meeting with the house republican whip team which is responsible for counting the conference's votes. oklahoma congressman tom cole said it's time to immediately extend the bush-era tax cuts which, of course, is what obama is calling for, for households earning less than $250,000 a year. then he later told "the new york times," quote, the first thing i'd do is make sure we don't raise taxes on 98% of the american people. we'll get some credit for that, and it'
to the voters that mitt romney did not. obviously, mitt romney had a huge deficit with african-american voters, hispanic voters and women voters, so i think these potential candidates are trying to map it out. >> david corn, when george w. bush ran, he got such a quick surge in the polls that no one was able to stop him. is jeb bush that guy this time? is he the one that if he makes it clear he's running, others will decide not to? >> you know, i still wonder if two words come to mind. too soon. i mean, the george w. bush presidency is still not held in high esteem amongst many voters who still blame bush for the economic downturn at the end of his administration that has carried us to this day. jeb bush has the ability to talk to hispanic, more moderate, but i also wonder if you know, people will be a little tired of the bush dynasty come to 2016. >> well, they're too tired of it now, but 2016 is a few years away. thank you both for joining me tonight. >>> coming up, good news for democrats trying to keep control of the senate in 2014 and one republican whose strategy for dealing with latino
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
and be on the group with a group of bipartisan business leaders and deficit hawks getting something done, meeting with republicans and democrats. do you have any more optimism let me point out you and your pal erskine bowles, he was quoted as saying he's more pessimistic something will be accomplished. >> my poor dear partner, bloodied but unvowed, six months ago erskine was saying i think we can get there. now, he's pessimistic. would be a word. we were just with a group go big or go home, democrats and republicans alike, they've got signatures of over 200 -- 102 house members, half of the senate working for us, equally divided on both sides, you have to have something bipartisan. you can write it on a single sheet of paper if it had firewalls and triggers, and if it were just signed by an equal number of democrats and republicans, the markets would lay off of us. if they continue to see this dead-head struggling, the same old stuff, they're going to punish us. when they do the guy that will get hurt is the little guy, middle class, inflation, interest rates, that's who gets hammered. what an ir
on a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits, to streamline our tax system, to do it in a balanced way, including asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more so we can invest in training, education, science, and research. now, i know some of this may sound familiar to you because we talked a lot about this during the campaign. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was a major debate in the presidential campaign and in congressional campaigns all across the country and a clear majority of americans, not just democrats but also a lot of republicans and a lot of independents agreed we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt middle class families. and i'm glad to see, if you've been reading the papers lately, that more and more republicans in congress seem to be agreeing with this idea that we should have a balanced approach. so if both parties agree we should not raise taxes on middle class families, let's begin our work with where we agree. the senate's already passed a bill that keeps income taxes from going up
and your party come to this debate with big deficit because you and president bush and dick cheney lied this country into war and you had a lot of lies on foreign policy about wmds. president bush even said once in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's g
those cuts go in definition and else places, there will be $560 billion cut in the deficit but a 4% cut in the gdp throwing us technically right into recession. is that you're belief if we don't do anything between now and january 1st this country will go into recession, jared? >> it is my belief if we go over the cliff and stay over the cliff. if we're able to hammer out a deal, even if that deal isn't completely stamped and approved on january 1st, there is the possibility of a very temporary trip over the fiscal slope, if you will, and then a reversal. but if we go over the cliff and stay over the cliff i'm pretty sure we'd be looking at recession. >> what about the impact on world markets and money markets in new york, et cetera, et cetera, what would it do about the confidence of the united states' ability to deal with fiscal matters, if we go over the cliff in any way? >> yes. if you look at those markets today you'll see they're pricing in a solution. that's why treasury bills have a yield of 1.6%, historical low. if those markets believed, as i described it, a deal was in the of
are going to have to look at entitle reform. entitlement. reform is the only way to get the debt and deficit under control. we've got to take it on. >> chris: let me ask you, you say you would consider more revenue but with loopholes -- >> there's so many of them. >> chris: you voted against the bush tax cuts a decade ago because you said too many of the benefits go to the wealthy, not the middle class. once they were passed you have changed your view and said i'm not going to oppose them. it you could get a deal for entitlement reform and take a chunk out of the national debt, why is the 35% top tax rate which you oppose sacred? >> every economist i respect says if you raise tax rates at this time -- the president says that a couple of years ago -- it harms the economy. we're trying to help the economy. unless i'm convinced raising tax rates will be beneficial, obviously i think there's reason and grounds for my position. i also believe that we can and must get an agreement, otherwise i think first of all the markets are going to start reacting. >> chris: we'll talk about that in the next s
that his number one focus was jobs and the economy and also having a long-term plan to reduce the deficit in a balanced way and that means in addition to cuts you would also have revenue, revenue that you get by asking higher income earners to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit and so the president was really clear in the campaign and i think it is really important that he take that discussion to the country now because he has said to the congress, the president said to the congress, just extend immediately all the middle class tax cuts and then we can decide what to do with folks at the higher end. again, it is important to understand the president has proposed that everybody get continued tax relief, existing tax rates, on the first $250,000 of family income, so he says let's extend that for everybody right now, but he believes we should ask higher income individuals to pay a little bit more. >> house majority leader eric cantor was on morning joe talking about the grover norquist tax pledge and whether he like other republicans would be willing to jump ship. here is his answer
the debt and deficit under control. and we have to take it on. >> chris: but let me ask you. you say you would consider more revenue but through loopholes and deductions... let me ask you, you vote against the bush tax cuts, a decade ago, because, and i went back and looked, you said too many of the benefits go to the wealthy, not to the middle class and once they were passed you changed your view and said they have taken effect. i will not oppose them. but, if you could get a solid deal, with, as you call for, spending cuts and entitlement reform and make a major -- take a chunk out of the national debt, why is the 35% top tax rate which you opposed sacred? >> because every economist that i respect says if you raise tax rates at this time, in fact, the president even said a couple of years ago, it harms the economy. we are trying to help the economy. and, so, unless i can be convinced that raising tax rates will be beneficial, then obviously i think there's reason and ground for my position. but, i also believe that we can and must get an agreement, otherwise i think first of all, the m
to the current debt or the deficit. social security is something that needs to be shored up. it's relatively easy to do compared to the other -- compared to the other problems, but we need to take a balanced approach to the other problems. this idea that we can just -- you know, the american people didn't believe the republican party's nominee who said we can just get rid of some of these deductions. we can get rid of some of the loopholes. that's not going to work. >> i don't understand the, frankly, the contortions being taken by some republicans to avoid raising the tax rate even a point or two at this point. can you explain why it's so important not to raise the rate at all even if it means getting rid of all sorts of deductions? >> because i think you have to say before you raise the rates and say, hey, everyone needs to pay more, we need to look at things we can do to flatten the code, to grow the economy, why would you tell people they have to pay more, small businesses, individuals, before -- >> make them pay more by getting hatch the deductions. >> it makes it flatter and fairer and supp
deficit. it's well funded for decades ahead but if you look at medicare, here's what the president has to say about that. the president says look at the budget i originally submitted to congress and you will see i have put in excruciating detail cuts to the medicare program that i think we can afford so the president has put that forward. there are those in his party to his left who would like to push back on that. but what we have missing from this discussion right now i think is that same level of specificity coming from the republican side on any of the cuts that they have talked about. i mean, that the nuts and bolts of a negotiation over budget deal so, yes, you have laid out this sort of landscape of the politics and where the cuts would come from and in particular the fact that the administration put forward medicare reforms but what we don't see from the other side is specificity on revenues. the republicans say, yes, we need more revenues but they're not willing to exactly spell out what that means and that's missing from their side of the discussion. >> let's move to the hot
in new hampshire say i don't mind sharing some of the cost of dealing with our debt and deficits, but i want to feel like if i'm going to do that that it's going to be fair that everybody is going to be part of sharing in that burden. >> is there something for you, senator, that's an absolute nonstarter? >> well, i think we do need to take social security off the table. because social security has not contributed to the debt and the deficits. and so we do need to fix it for the long-term, but that's a different discussion than the one that we're having about those programs that are actually costing. so i think we do have to look at the cost of health care long-term because that's going to contribute to the debt. >> i also want to ask you about susan rice, she is meeting with senators mccain, graham, and ayott. do you think she has explaining to do with what she said about benghazi? and would you support her if she is nominated for secretary of state? >> she's not yet been nominated. so i'm going to look carefully at her credentials, which i think qualify her very well to be nominated. i
address the fundamental problem and driver of federal deficits and debt. and that's reforming these entitlement programs that are on an unsustainable path right now. >> so but remember the president also said when he extended the 35% tax rate for the upper income for those making more than $250,000 a year, he says -- he said then that was the last time he was going to do it. it was a one-shot deal. he wasn't going to do it anymore. and as you know he ran his re-election campaign on the notion he was going to increase the tax rates from 35% to 39.6% for those people making more than $250,000 a year. you think he's likely to blink on that? >> you know, i don't know. i hope he is at least willing to work with republicans. republicans are open for business up here. if he wants to bring entitlement reform into this discussion -- and you made the comment or showed dick durbin's comment this morning about that would be too hard to do. well, all the work's been done. you've had simpson bolls, a lot of work out there has been done. we know what the issues are and what it's going to tak
wants to see. it is a $4 billion package of cuts to the deficit a combination of spending cuts and new revenue and about $2 trillion of that coming from getting rid of the bush tax cuts. at the same time while getting rid of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans letting the tax cuts for 98% of americans continue because the middle class do need the help and the wealthiest people do not. so to get there of course, and by the way let's back up, right. the president put forth his plan on november 6th and mitt romney put forth his plan and the american people said no, we don't like that romney way of going which is to continue to coddle the rich. we agree with president obama. so now the negotiations are underway. about how to avoid going off the fiscal cliff. and what is the president doing? yesterday, he met with small business leaders. at the white house. the white house met with leaders of jack lew, the chief of staff. met with leaders of the chamber of commerce. today the president is meeting with so
, is hurting our own federal deficit. so i think scott walker is someone who can say, look, i've done this, it was not easy, and i succeeded. as far as democrats are concerned, it's really a far less wide-open race, i think, than with republicans, simply because you have this hillary clinton decision out there, whether she does or doesn't. if she doesn't, i think you might have some democrats saying, you know, we won with the senator the last timing, but that's really, really unusual. governors are good. and martin o'malley of maryland, brian schweitzer of montana are two possibilities. >> greta: i think governor o'malley, a big choice, obviously someone people have their eyes on, but also cory booker, a mayor on the democratic side from newark, new jersey. we'll see a lot of corey booker. on the republican side, a woman, governor, suzanna martinez from the state of new mexico. i think she's someone to keep our eye on, because i think her speech at the republican national convention was one that wowed somebody. >> open races on both sides, which makes it fun. >> or joe biden. >> greta: tha
important that we get that resolved and i am very open to a fair and balanced approach to reduce our deficit and provide the kind of certainty that businesses and consumers need that we can keep this recovery going. and obviously, we'll be spending sometime talking about national security issues, as well. but i just want to say thank you to this extraordinary cabinet for a job well done and i will take this opportunity to publicly embarrass two members of the cabinet whose birthdays are today or tomorrow. rich consecki, happy birthday to you. that is actually today. and janet napolitano's birthday is tomorrow. all right, guys. thank you. we want to get back to work. >> mr. president -- >> thank you, so much, guys. susan rice is extraordinary. couldn't be prouder of the job she's done. all right. >> that was the president praising his current cabinet, also a little compliment to susan rice there at the end. straight ahead, we have more politics. the man behind america's political dynasty, the untold story of patriarch of joseph p. kennedy. [ male announcer ] if you suffer from heartburn 2 or
deficit. and i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something that we didn't do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiations. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. and that's why we take the position and believe strongly that increasing marginal rates is income tax rates is not the way to produce growth and to put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of this administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i'm told that mr. bolz, some of us will meet with him later today, has said earlier this morning that there's been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements on medicare and medicaid. this has to be a part of this agreement or else we
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)